> On Sep 22, 2020, at 4:30 AM, Karsten Reincke <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Carl; > > here is my explanation using the method of showing an analogy: >
<snip> You are conflating the GPL as applied to functional software versus the rights of the user for the content produced through the use of that functional software. The use of GPL software to produce content does not subject the content to the GPL. GPL software can be used to produce copyrighted material without any difficulty whatsoever. If I use Emacs to write a letter to my Aunt Tillie, even though Emacs is licensed under the GPL my letter to Aunt Tillie remains copyrighted and private. The same is true with music produced through the use of Lily Pond; my input document ending in .LY is not subject to the GPL. Scheme calls, overrides, etc., are part of my content and not part of Lilypond. This is the sort of attack that the GPL and free software has been subjected to multiple times over decades. It has all been seen and resolved before.
